There were definitely women in the police by then, but it wouldn't matter if there was a policeman accompanied by a woman in some other role of support. I am thinking further, after reading the last three posts, that our farewell to Susan could be a number of short vignettes:

1 - She receives the bad news.2 - She is given the personal possessions (including the box of rings) - this would be done at a police station. If she lives in Bristol (conjectured above) it would be a Bristol one. Maybe Harold and Alberta would have come down from Cambridge by then, and they are going together? 3 - She goes to the Professor's smaller house, letting herself in with a key, and walking in semi-darkness to the bedroom with the Wardrobe. [would she try to open it or just place her hand on the door handle?]

[The story of the three survivors of this tragedy really engaged me about 12 years ago - and I wrote a poem for each one. I have reposted two of them recently but am reluctant to post the Susan one again as it's rather fanfic]

@ Coracle, I wouldn't mind reading those efforts, even if they were fanfic. I did something very fanfic with Susan, myself, back in 2013, finishing it about 22 November that year. It was divided into 6 parts and was called If Susan was a real person. It may still be available for anyone to read on line, on http://gadigal.livejournal.com

I wanted to explore the ramifications of trying to deny something that is part of who Susan was, as part of her family, and as part of UK's efforts in that war, and how suppressing now painful and sad memories might affect her in the long run, especially within the often close confines of a marriage where it can be difficult to withhold secrets. I chose for her husband the American military type mentioned in VDT, to make my story more feasible. But it is a bit cheeky of me when I've never been to America and don't really have a clue what it was like there. Especially in the 60's and 70's, when I was busy with my own life, apart from reading the news. The story I wrote needs a lot more proofreading, anyway.

I'm still not sure that Susan would know anything about the rings, and the possible consequences if she tried one on. I wonder if something said about those rings might stir some memory though? Something said that she didn't pay much attention to at the time but remembers all too clearly now? Or maybe Aunt Alberta might mention to Susan, Eustace's journal, as something he always carried? Would that also be something the police might have possession of, and which might shed some light on the rings, and what they were to be used for? The idea that there might also be other items, such as the wardrobe, which might be more familiar to her if she got to see them, as Rose mentions, is also a good one.

I made a note of what Doug Gresham said about Susan's fate:

C.S.Lewis is commemorated in Westminster Abbey's Poet's Corner as of 22nd November, 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of his death. A few weeks beforehand, his stepson, Doug Gresham, in an Asbury College interview, was asked about Susan's fate. He replied that the whole point of Susan was that we weren't supposed to know, that it was a mystery. He recommended leaving the story as Jack left them. For all anyone knew, Susan could have been a great-grandmother, living near Asbury College, in Kentucky.

However, I couldn't resist the idea of having a very real Susan finding out she was one of the main characters in a famous story, and the idea of people even more cheeky than myself, wanting to hunt her down to discuss why she wasn't in a train crash.

waggawerewolf27 wrote:@ Coracle, I wouldn't mind reading those efforts, even if they were fanfic. I did something very fanfic with Susan, myself, back in 2013, finishing it about 22 November that year. It was divided into 6 parts and was called If Susan was a real person. It may still be available for anyone to read on line, on http://gadigal.livejournal.com

@ Bree. Thank you for your kindness, and I am flattered. But getting back to your question "Should Susan be excluded from "The Last Battle", I do agree we may not need to show a blow by blow recounting of how she eventually might make her way back to Narnia. A film just needs to round off Susan's story post accident.

Perhaps a film might just need something small that illustrates the difficulties of Susan's position so far in the series, that ten years after she and her siblings were evacuated, like a lot of other British children, she only sees her Narnian experiences at that time as "funny games that we played as children", and not the realities she may have to address, sooner or later.

Yes, by all means have the rings being presented to Susan, as coracle has outlined. But she might not be the only one who turns up at that time. Aunt Alberta and Uncle Harold may be there, as well. They may have Eustace's journal which remained with his body in the train wreck, unlike the sandwiches etc he and Jill took into Narnia. And they are Susan's aunt and uncle, also.

I can see how Aunt Alberta might react to the journal if she gets it. She might want to swap with Susan if she sees in it that Eustace has mentioned those rings, if she fancies them. Or, Susan might need to read the journal to examine what the rings are all about, anyway. It depends on how Susan sees the rings, and if she thinks rings would be just a nice way to remember her family.

Just how would Susan deal with the Scrubbs? Would Aunt Alberta generate a fight over those most disputatious of rings? Could she blame Susan's family, if not Susan, herself, for Eustace's death, like she blamed them for his reform at the end of VDT? Maybe that sort of thing could be Susan's first realisation that those "funny games we used to play as children", weren't really games at all.

I haven't read all the replies in this thread, but I would be upset as a fan of the books if they just ignored Susan's loss of interest in Narnia. Many fans have offered great explanations as to why Susan wasn't "sent to hell because she was getting interested in clothes and boys" as J. K. Rowling put it and that view has in my opinion been thoroughly routed, so I'll focus on something slightly different.

Susan's character shift is part of a general trend in LB. LB is a beautiful, but in many ways also unsettling, book. Shift's description of what he plans to do to Narnia to turn it into a "country worth living in", the abuse and cruelty towards the Talking Animals and the other Narnian creatures, and of course Susan's shocking change of character are hard to take. That might be the biggest reason why, though I have never been able to say with confidence what my favourite Narnia book is, I know that LB is my least favourite. That's not to say I don't love it because I do, but I find it significantly less enjoyable than the others. It's a sobering book, but I think that is also what makes it great. We've been to Narnia six times before and we know how things work and we know the rules of the world. LB turns all of that on its head. It's a heartbreaking experience and it honestly reminds me of the downside of growing up - learning the way the world works, learning that not everyone has a happy ending, experiencing pain, loss etc. As a child, you think you know how the world works, as we thought we knew the way Narnia books work, and both times we are in for a rude awakening. However, for many of us, these experiences bring us closer to God and make us long all the more for a world where there is no pain, suffering, or death. When I was a child, the idea of Paradise frightened me, but now I long for it. The dark and disturbing parts of LB make the entrance into Aslan's Country at the end, all the more powerful. LB, like all of the Narnia stories, rings true for me. I think it's an appropriate, while also a bold and unexpected, way to end the series.

And has been said many times, Susan's story isn't over! I would like a hint that there may yet be hope for Susan without being too certain about it. I like fantasia_kitty's and Rose's suggestions and, dare I say, that might make a slight improvement on the book.

*makes a note to check out wagga's fanfic, and wishes to read coracle's poem as well* We have a sister site of sorts called The Narnia Writer's Guild that seems to be pretty dusty these days, but it might be of service for some of these creations!

I find myself getting a little hung up on Gresham's "head canon" of Susan still alive as a great-grandmother... since he is very influential with the films and that image is already percolating in his mind, I wonder if that isn't how they might include Susan in an epilogue? (I suppose this is option #4, coracle. )

For one thing, a stately great-grandmother with a twinkle in her eye is a more pleasant visual for closing the film compared to the tragic sight of a young woman who has just lost her entire family to a train crash... it would end the series on a lighter note. The ending of The Last Battle is so incandescent, and I don't know if we'll want to be brought back down to earth by an epilogue that reminds us of profound grief in the Shadowlands. (I think that's why Lewis says no more about Susan's fate in the book; it would have been out of place.)

I can also easily imagine a redux of LWW's epilogue, except elderly Susan is mirroring the Professor and one of her great-grandchildren is in the place of Lucy. She could initially appear as though she is bothered that the child is playing with the wardrobe, as adults often are when children are messing with irreplaceable things, and then she says something mysterious (perhaps that doors can sometimes lead to somewhere unexpected) that would make the audience wonder if she does indeed believe again. (And maybe they can finally work in that line about how it's very silly to shut oneself up in a wardrobe. )

Still, I really love the possibility of a wordless epilogue showing young Susan being given the box containing the rings, or looking around the Professor's old house. I think what would work best in the film would really depend on how the preceding scenes in Aslan's Country feel, as well as what other choices they make to illustrate her character arc throughout the film.

Reepicheep775 wrote:Susan's character shift is part of a general trend in LB. LB is a beautiful, but in many ways also unsettling, book. Shift's description of what he plans to do to Narnia to turn it into a "country worth living in", the abuse and cruelty towards the Talking Animals and the other Narnian creatures, and of course Susan's shocking change of character are hard to take.

That's an excellent observation! I had never thought before about how Susan's drift away from Narnia is in keeping with LB's theme of breaking what we hoped and believed was unbreakable. I would also be very disappointed if they decided to shoehorn Susan into Aslan's Country at the end instead of telling her story as we know it. I really hope they don't consider doing that.

Susan should not be one of the friends of Narnia in the LB movie. No question about that. If they don't want that in the movie, there are plenty of other books they could consider adapting.

This is a really challenging bit of the conclusion that ties into the theme of the copy vs. the original (Susan is preoccupied with the copy of the world, while the others get to experience the real world). This idea is such a fundamental building block of the series.

I would also hate to see Narnia twisted into another generic blockbuster ending where every single person in the universe and their dog has to walk away happy. If they want to make that kind of movie, that's fine... but don't call it "The Last Battle."

I agree with not changing her lack of involvement, but would like to see her mentioned, and since this is film and not writing, we need to be shown it. It certainly must honour what Lewis wrote and his stepson commented (as quoted above).

I thought Aslan answered everyone's question about Susan when, in the book, he informed the Seven Friends of Narnia, in particular, that there had been a real train accident, which would enable them to stay on in Narnia for keeps. Whatever the Seven Friends of Narnia all said about Susan, it is amply clear that she wasn't on the train, and had no reason to be on the train, Narnia being no longer an interest she shares with her brothers and sister. And that, whilst Susan might feel she has cogent reasons for her current, rather mundane, preoccupation with "nylons, lipstick and invitations", and feel her previous adventures in Narnia were "funny games we played as children", that situation won't last for the rest of her life, as she starts coming to grips with the truths of adulthood, as Aunt Polly well knew.

Why not just say so in the film? Just so long as we don't have any more people maundering on afterwards about how Susan "missed out on heaven", and that she was in some way being punished for allegedly being "sinful". On what, and for what reason? Usually the people who do make these assertions are pushing a rigidly puritanical view of the very Christianity they don't believe in themselves. Blaming a fictitional Aslan for his judgement. Very much like the poor misled talking animals of Narnia, at the stable meetings, where a very angry "Tashlan" was "living".

It is extremely important what Aslan says about the train crash. Because a train crash is a very real thing in this world, usually due to human error in some way or another, and sometimes due to malice or warfare. Or both. We, down here, did commemorate, a fortnight ago, on 18th January, a particularly nasty train smash, which happened 40 years ago, exactly, not all that far from where I live, where 84 people died, including an unborn baby. There was a service, of course, in a nearby memorial park, 84 roses cascaded down on the railway line, and the media marked the anniversary, reminding us of that time at Granville.

There have been other train crashes, just as there have been disasters world-wide, some truly horrendous man-made ones, as well as natural disasters. Susan wasn't on the train everyone else with an interest in Narnia did catch. Just as my babies and myself didn't catch that 18 January 1977 train into Town that day.

As coracle says in one of her poems, quoting another very famous poem:

"They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we shall remember them". From "For the fallen" - Laurence Binyon

So is there really anything more to say about Susan?

Rose-Tree Dryad wrote:...I had never thought before about how Susan's drift away from Narnia is in keeping with LB's theme of breaking what we hoped and believed was unbreakable. I would also be very disappointed if they decided to shoehorn Susan into Aslan's Country at the end instead of telling her story as we know it. I really hope they don't consider doing that.

I'd never considered that observation either. Much of what I think about LB has occurred to me in bits and pieces over the years. That observation also illustrates why, if Susan is to be in the film at all, she must be handled very carefully, and briefly as well. Maybe at the end of the film, just have her leave flowers at the site where the train crash was? Along with many others?

I would be open to the inclusion of Susan in the end simply to help save time. Her exclusion is handled in a throwaway line and has no real relevance to the story. If not handled very well it would feel weird and awkward to stop the story to explain why a character we haven't seen in this film isn't present.

It's an interesting subplot, but ultimately unnecessary and awkward in film format.

Sig: courtesy of ErucenindëMost humble servant to the grand master of The Evil and Dark Lair of the LoESRMAnd I've Seen the Movie!!!

I think the Pevensies should be excluded from the Last Battle altogether, in the interest of effective story telling, and for the benefit of non-book fans. Now, here me out. The Tristar-Narnia series is going to be divorced from the first three movies, and, by extension, the first three books. To the extent that the Pevensies are included, they will likely be played by different actors.

As far as the movie-only fans are concerned, Peter is someone they've never met, Lucy is a blink-and-you-miss-it bit part in HHB, and Susan is a minor supporting character who was only in a single scene. Yes, her service to the plot is critical, but the audience doesn't get much of a chance to see or know or learn to care about her. Edmund has the largest role, but he's still not a central character. It might make some sense if he alone is included, but the others would just be a waste of time and space. The audience would be wondering "Why are we spending time on these characters?"

Anhun wrote:The audience would be wondering "Why are we spending time on these characters?"

I think justifying the Pevensies' presence in the story will probably be a challenge, but I suspect there are better solutions than cutting them out altogether.

Anhun wrote: The Tristar-Narnia series is going to be divorced from the first three movies

At this stage, we don't know that for sure. I think it's much more likely that SC will be a direct sequel to VDT. Probably with an all-new cast, but perhaps not. I wouldn't take Gordon's off-the-cuff statements as official announcements.

Reepicheep775 wrote:Susan's character shift is part of a general trend in LB. LB is a beautiful, but in many ways also unsettling, book. Shift's description of what he plans to do to Narnia to turn it into a "country worth living in", the abuse and cruelty towards the Talking Animals and the other Narnian creatures, and of course Susan's shocking change of character are hard to take.

Yes, Susan's character shift, as you might call it, might well be part of a general trend in LB. The animals are being misled by rumours, Shift thinks of "progress" and Calormen has always loomed large because of its preoccupations with commerce and warfare, both taken to the nth degree. Narnia, itself, has fallen to an ambush of soldiers dressed up as merchants, and its king has been made a captive of the invading army. Aslan is being misrepresented by a lionskin-wearing donkey, whom Shift and friends eventually call "Tashlan", a confusion of both Tash and Aslan, who seems a very angry, aggressive, vengeful and rapacious deity, more inclined to exploit and enslave the Narnians, than to protect and deliver them from evil, as Aslan has always done in the series. And the Dwarves, sick of being deceived, don't believe in either Tash or Aslan, or in anyone else but themselves.

But whilst Susan's alleged change of character seems to have swung at that point to humdrum everyday matters and away from Narnia, I am not convinced it is such a shocking change of character, after all. Maybe all along, in the series, she had a different view of what "home" entails to that of her sister and two brothers. One more in keeping with Eustace, when we first meet him in VDT, who at first thought money-loving Calormen sounded less "phony" than the other countries in that world, with Edmund for whom Aslan died, and one more in keeping with her own "man of the street" expectations of what "adulthood" might be like for her, as she demonstrated in her conversations with the Professor.

Anhun wrote: The Tristar-Narnia series is going to be divorced from the first three movies, and, by extension, the first three books. To the extent that the Pevensies are included, they will likely be played by different actors.

As far as the movie-only fans are concerned, Peter is someone they've never met, Lucy is a blink-and-you-miss-it bit part in HHB, and Susan is a minor supporting character who was only in a single scene. Yes, her service to the plot is critical, but the audience doesn't get much of a chance to see or know or learn to care about her. Edmund has the largest role, but he's still not a central character. It might make some sense if he alone is included, but the others would just be a waste of time and space. The audience would be wondering "Why are we spending time on these characters?"

Of course the Pevensies could and would be played by different actors for both HHB, if it ever gets filmed, as well as LB, not only because it is a different company and production, but also because for all intents and purposes, the Pevensies have grown up, themselves, in both books. LB does lead on from SC, in that Eustace and Jill Pole play a significant role in both books. But I don't see that the Pevensies play little or no part in the remainder of the series, except for MN, which is the Digory and Polly show. The parts are there in LB, which when it talks about "the Seven Friends of Narnia", actually means "Seven" friends, even if some get played by extras. However, The Seven friends of Narnia are a supporting team, even if they refer to earlier Narnia characters, and it is Eustace and Jill who are the most important.

Susan Pevensie, for example, does play a catalytical part in HHB, where her dallying about with the idea of "romance", and "courtship" leads her to an ill-advised encouragement of Rabadash's ambitions to marry her, and a tricky visit to Tashbaan. The very sort of "romance" and "courtship" which lured Susan in HHB, but which, in LB, has been argued about in the literary world, as part of her growing up. And if both movies are made, Susan's earlier brush with Calormen does make her role in LB somewhat more explainable, in my view, at any rate. She doesn't appear in LB at all, because at that stage of her life she isn't one of the Seven Friends of Narnia, having made her peace with the Calormene empire.

Edmund, a third of the Seven Friends of Narnia, is the one who gets her back "home" to Cair Paravel, and rides to the relief of Anvard, to fend off Rabadash, after which the four Pevensies, chasing the White Stag, find themselves back in the Professor's house, after Susan wants to "return home and chase this stag no more". In HHB, Lucy, having "held the fort" at Cair Paravel, rides to Anvard with Edmund, befriends Aravis, and in LB tries to befriend the dwarves in a section of the stable. But I agree she and Edmund don't have big parts in LB, except as part of the Seven Friends of Narnia. Peter, who doesn't have any sort of speaking part in HHB, is considered the leader of that group. As High King, he shuts the door on Narnia, he and Edmund recover the rings in London, and is the one who answers Tirian when he appears at one of their meetings.

Just as SC and LB can be coupled together, because of Jill and Eustace, not only as main characters, but as two of the members of the Seven Friends of Narnia, Susan's story as an adult, does bracket HHB and LB together quite nicely. Rishda Tarkaan's eventual overthrow of Narnia was foreshadowed in Rabadash's earlier attempt to invade Narnia.

You could say that LB wraps up the series. When bracketed with each of all three of the remaining unfilmed three books, it ties off three different strands. Publication wise, and also thematically it is the last of the septology, with MN being the first, even if it was the sixth book to be published. LB closes off Eustace's (and Jill's) story, and it also closes off finally the Calormen/Narnia relationship. It is because of the Calormen/Narnia relationship, and the death of magic and wonder at the hands of ordinary everyday Mammon, which I think is why Susan had to be mentioned in LB at all.

I think it would be necessary to include the Seven Friends in LB, to remain recognisable as the same story, even if Susan can be omitted altogether, which I doubt.

waggawerewolf27 wrote: But I don't see that the Pevensies play little or no part in the remainder of the series, except for MN, which is the Digory and Polly show.

The Pevensies are nowhere in the Silver Chair either. Eustace makes a passing reference to "my cousins" one time. That's as close as they come. HHB is the only opportunity that audiences have prior to LB to get to know any of the Pevensies.

waggawerewolf27 wrote:The parts are there in LB, which when it talks about "the Seven Friends of Narnia", actually means "Seven" friends, even if some get played by extras . . . But I agree she and Edmund don't have big parts in LB, except as part of the Seven Friends of Narnia . . . I think it would be necessary to include the Seven Friends in LB, to remain recognisable as the same story

The Seven Friends are neither important to the plot, nor meaningful to people who aren't familiar with the books, especially if the friends are being played by extras. Take the seven friends out and it would be very much the same story. Even closer if you change them to the Four or Five Friends of Narnia, which has the added benefit of alliteration.

waggawerewolf27 wrote:Peter, who doesn't have any sort of speaking part in HHB, is considered the leader of that group. As High King, he shuts the door on Narnia, he and Edmund recover the rings in London, and is the one who answers Tirian when he appears at one of their meetings.

Lucy is the one who has a non-speaking part in HHB. Peter doesn't even put in an physical appearance in that book. He is mentioned once just to explain his absence. Yes, he does some things in LB, but he gets no proper introduction or any sort of character development. This will leave non-book fans wondering why he is there doing things at all. Basically, the story of LB presents the Pevensies in a way that assumes that the audience already knows them and are invested in them, which many of them won't be. It would be much more effective to have Digory take on Peter's responsibilities, especially since he was the first one to discover Narnia and the one to bury the rings in the first place. The fact that he is an older man is no argument against this, because my father is about the age Digory is supposed to be in LB, and he's still capable of shutting doors, talking to people (though not usually visions from another universe), and digging in a garden.

waggawerewolf27 wrote:Susan Pevensie, for example, does play a catalytical part in HHB, . . . Susan's story as an adult, does bracket HHB and LB together quite nicely. . . It is because of the Calormen/Narnia relationship, and the death of magic and wonder at the hands of ordinary everyday Mammon, which I think is why Susan had to be mentioned in LB at all.

Yes, Susan is an important plot device in HHB, but there is a difference between an important device and an important character. The Calormenes themselves are a much stronger link between HHB and LB.

Anhun wrote:The audience would be wondering "Why are we spending time on these characters?"

While the inclusion of the Pevensies in LB might be a little challenging, especially with all of the years stretching in between the Walden Trilogy and the upcoming films, I also think that they're necessary glue for the story.

1. How would the Friends of Narnia have even formed without the Pevensies? They're the ones who know Digory Kirke. You'd at least need to mention them for exposition purposes, and if you say that much, then you also need to explain why they aren't around anymore... "they all moved abroad" and thus missed out on the exciting conclusion to a world in which they were pivotal players feels weak to me. That doesn't feel like a creative decision; it feels like the sort of thing that happens when a production team can't get the actors to reprise their roles.

Further, I think it could be a good idea to go ahead and introduce the Friends of Narnia in MN and HHB. While I admit that having each movie begin with "story time" at a Friends of Narnia meeting runs the risk of being a little hokey, I think a thread to tie the films together might be in order. The remaining four stories don't exactly fit together as a cohesive series. Here, meet Jill and Eustace! Now meet Digory and Polly! Oh wait, it's time to get to know Shasta and Aravis! And now back to Jill and Eustace! It's pretty atypical for Hollywood, to say the least. Friends of Narnia scenes in MN and HHB could help provide more of a narrative, and the audience would already know what the Friends of Narnia are when we see them in LB.

2. I've known fans who have listed HHB as their least favorite book because it felt like too much of an outlier in the series. I myself have worried in years past that they might find a way to reschedule the events of HHB so they take place right before LB, making the events of HHB more immediately relevant and allowing Aravis and Shasta (who will probably be popular characters) to be included in LB. While I don't think that the Estate is likely to let that happen at this point, it remains that HHB doesn't have a strong link to the rest of the stories that are left to be told. Calormene aggression is a thematic link and an important one, but it's only in the abstract. Bad blood between countries is just a concept, but the Pevensies are real people that the audience can establish familiarity with. I think HHB would feel more connected to the last four films as a whole if the Pevensies are also included in LB.

Can't say what would be best from a movie point of view--I do know that I would be terribly disappointed if they left the Pevensies out of future films. They might only appear in miniscule cameos (though I can think of ways that that could be improved) and should be the original actors (which might be hard, viz., cost/availability issues).

As to Susan, I don't think they ought to whitewash what happens with her. It needn't be a large part of the story; indeed, it is merely an aside in the book itself. My initial response on reading that section (and for many years) was more or less, "Oh, too bad about Susan," and no more than that. If the movie makers choose to make a big deal of it, and say that she was condemned to hell because of boys and the like, I would strongly disagree. That is the conclusion of other people, not Lewis.

Hollywood doesn't seem inclined to avoid bringing up inflammatory ideas (when sometimes they should), so I don't see why they would shy away from including some reference to Susan's disillusionment. It really does depend on how much they bring in all the rest. If they decided to scrub further appearances of the Pevensies, then by all means leave out Susan's lapse. But really, I would rather have it in there.

Now my days are swifter than a post: they flee away ... my days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle